The project ‘J. S. Bach, Cantata movements for organ four hands’ makes very clearly defined demands on the recording and editing team: allow the organs to sound such that the voice-leading so characteristic for this music remains audible and, therefore, able to be followed by the listener. The extent to which very considerable compromises had to be made in terms of the sound of the organs themselves was very limited, although an important detail nevertheless. Why was this the case?

Each combination of church and organ, produces an ‘optimum’: a three-dimensionally determined place where two microphones in an A-B formation suffice to create a recording which does justice both to the organ and to the listener. Listening back to the recording using a pair of normal living room speakers, the listener feels as if he is experiencing a live organ concert in the church in question. Nothing new about this, of course. The ‘optimum’ was easily found in the Grote Kerk in Leeuwaarden (CD II in the series); the church in question is a fairly long, narrow, and not especially high room in which the beautiful Müller organ is somewhat compactly installed. With the microphone stand in the correct position and at the correct height, and with two additional, and slightly more separated microphones to slightly accentuate the breadth in the mix, a very realistic recording became possible which, on the one hand, completely fulfils the previously mentioned demand for sufficient transparency and, on the other, places the listener ‘actively’ in the pew, experiencing the concert first-hand as it were.The recording in the St.-Petrikirche in Melle, Germany (CD V in de series) is also a good example of this relatively simple principle. In other words: the simpler the set-up, the more honest the recording sounds. This is and will remain our point of departure.

Unfortunately, things are not always so simple. The Bovenkerk in Kampen (CD III) and the St.-Bavo in Haarlem (CD VI) are both enormous, high rooms with large organs located high above the floor. Without a doubt both beautiful and monumental, but in both cases the optimum seems so high and far away from the organ that the required transparency is difficult to obtain, although no less desirable. Although fine for normal organ repertoire, these Bach transcriptions with, for example, an ever-present continuo line, become almost literally a bridge too far. The ‘optimum’ sounds less than optimal; somewhat dull, less transparent and with less presence than desired. Although still clearly the organ in question, the recording fails to present the music in its best light. This then is the dilemma: do we record the organs in the first instance, which in any case enjoy worldwide fame (and for a very good reason!), or do we prioritise the music?

Those who have collected the whole series know the answer already: in these difficult rooms, we have expressly chosen a manner of recording which allows the organs to function at the service of the music rather than vice versa. The principle is a relatively simple one, but its execution demands a certain amount of logistical planning. Instead of finding just one ‘optimum’, two have to be identified, one directly below the other and both somewhat closer to the instrument than the single optimum would be. The higher positioned A-B-pair are hoisted to the correct height by means of a pulley system, whilst the lower pair are mounted on a stand. This is made possible thanks to an ingenious system devised by recording engineer Jack Westra. An additional pair of microphones to accentuate the breadth in the sound is used, just as with a single ‘optimum’.

This results a set-up which allows the various divisions of the organ to be subtly brought into balance with each other during the production stage of the process and, as a result, to do justice to the initial point of departure: melody lines – sometimes four or five simultaneously – must be individually identifiable from a technical perspective but, more especially, ‘musically audible’.

Disadvantage: those familiar with the organs and their rooms find themselves no longer sitting in the church they know so well; the position of the listener is not (or no longer) clearly defined and he hears, to his surprise, a different instrument. One must ask, however, whether this really is a disadvantage... Advantage: Justice is fully and unconditionally done to Bach’s rich cantata oeuvre in unorthodox circumstances and the organs are heard (literally) from a new perspective.

The dilemma sums up Johan Cruijff’s famous comment admirably; “Every advantage has its disadvantage”... and vice versa. It just depends which way you look at it...